All of these things, and so much more, are possible because of the openness of the Internet. Any entrepreneur with an idea has always been able to create a website and share their ideas globally – without paying extra tolls to have their content seen by other users. An open Internet made Google possible eleven years ago, and it's going to make the next Google possible.

In our comments filed today in the FCC's proposed rulemaking docket, we explained that our goal is straightforward: "to keep the Internet awesome for everybody."

The Internet was designed to empower users. Its open, "end-to-end" architecture means that users – not network providers or anyone else – decide what succeeds or fails online. It's a formula that has worked incredibly well, resulting in mind blowing innovation, incredible investment, and more consumer choice than ever.

For the online world's first three decades, a set of FCC regulations protected the openness of the communications on-ramps. Unfortunately, those safeguards were stripped away back in 2005, which since then has led to confusion, uncertainty, and, in some cases, bad acts.

That's why we've argued that the FCC should re-adopt rules to prevent network providers from discriminating against certain services, applications, or viewpoints on the Web, and requiring them to be transparent about how they manage their networks.

More specifically, in our FCC filing, we support:

Adding a nondiscrimination principle that bans prioritizing Internet traffic based on the ownership (the who), the source (the what) of the content or application;

Adding a transparency principle that ensures all users have clear information about broadband providers' offerings;

Providing a carefully-defined "reasonable network management" exception so that broadband providers are empowered to address genuine congestion issues and protect against hazards like malware and spamming;

Applying general openness protections to both wireline and wireless broadband infrastructure; and

I sat down with Megan Stull, our telecom policy counsel, to discuss these and other issues. Forgive our video editing, it's a little Max Headroom-ish, but hey that's one of the things that make the Internet awesome.

The best internet will always be the one that is the most un-biased, open and engaging. What would Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) say? "Imagine a world in which every person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge." That is a world in which I would like to live and a world that an open and awesome internet can provide.

Google should consider doing proxy jobs. There is great desire for that kind of tool, especially in some area from which Google has to leave. The chef and wireless network in the building are both great. I'll miss them...

Thank You. You are a very large company, both you and version. You word means something. I know true openness of the internets will take some time but I would really like to know at least what my ISPs are doing. I would like them to inform the users of their limitations and practices. Whether they throttle traffic or cap certain services. All we see on this end is the maximum speed we may achieve. It is like we drive down a highway blindfolded only knowing the speed limit.

And you expect us not to know about Google's separate private dealings with Verizon that will serve to undermine all the beautiful noble sentiments you espouse here? http://www.publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-calls-verizon-google-deal-‘regret

Google - could you explain how your talks with Verizon ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=2&emc=eta1 ) to prioritize traffic to consumers is consistent with this policy!? As a user of an Android phone with Verizon as a carrier, I do not support and am extremely troubled by these proceedings.

I have been looking all over for a place to email a public policy comment/concern to somebody at Google, but this is the best I could find.

I've really believed in Google Inc., against my natural distrust of corporations, as a company that was trying to innovate and "[not] be evil". But making a deal with the devil (in this case Verizon) to implement pay-to-play hierarchies in web traffic; well that seems ... possibly pretty evil. Granted the above reports aren't corroborated, but with back-room deals, isn't that the problem? By the time we hear about it its too late.

Very contradicting compared to what [evil] your doing with Verizon. Great option if you want your company do go down in flames. The [now controlled] Internet is a dog-eat-dog world, be careful or you'll be the next Microsoft.

I see a whole lot of righteously indignant posts above, quoting and referencing the NY Times. I have an idea...why don't you go to the source and make up your own mind. What's this? I think it's the actual proposal put forward. Read it and make up your mind, or continue letting someone else tell you what to think and keep it to yourself...